Originally Posted by Biker Biggles (Post 2471300)

My first thought was that there must be more to this or they would have brought a more serious charge.Perhaps the evidence was'nt robust enough to get a conviction?
What it does show is that we concentrate for too much on the actual result of a piece of appauling behaviour rather than on the behaviour itself.If the victim had been killed he would have gone down for manslaughter or death by dangerous driving and be doing five or six years.However,the victim survived so he only gets fouteen months for exactly the same behaviour.Its the behaviour that needs punishing,not the lottery of what the result was.